So far this has only implemented in Southern Africa, on the Namibia-Angola border.214 Although such a card might not completely resolve the question of nationality, and might add to a confusion of identity documents, it could be useful to establish evidence of entitlement to one of two (or both) nationalities, which could be resolved at a later date. 4.6. Populations affected by transfer of territory A particular category of border population most affected by doubts around nationality are those affected by border disputes; and in particular those where administration of territory has been transferred as a result of a ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), of which there are several cases since independence in West Africa. The best known of these, and the one affecting the most people, relates to the Bakassi peninsula bordering Nigeria and Cameroon; but other cases relate to disputed frontiers between territories formerly administered as part of AOF, where boundary determination had never been a priority during the colonial period. Often the populations affected by such border disputes have long had limited contact with the central administrations of either country, and thus are likely to have few documents of an existing nationality; in addition, they may be members of minority ethnic groups, or of nomadic or semi-nomadic lifestyle, making them more vulnerable to doubts about their nationality, whether or not any dispute is resolved. 4.6.1. The Bakassi Peninsula The border dispute between Nigeria and Cameroon over the Bakassi peninsula, as well as territory further north towards Lake Chad, was referred to the ICJ by Cameroon in 1994. A final judgement was issued in the case in 2002, which granted sovereignty over the peninsula and other territory to Cameroon.215 The court case did not consider the nationality of the people living in the territory affected (who had largely considered themselves Nigerians), though, in accordance with international norms which base nationality in case of succession of states on habitual residence, it was presumed that Bakassi residents would become Cameroonian.216 The number of people affected was also disputed between Cameroon and Nigeria, but was alleged by Nigeria to be more than 150,000 people.217 Nigeria rejected the judgement, stating that “For Nigeria, it is not a matter of oil or natural resources on land or in coastal waters, it is a matter of the welfare and well-being of her people on their land.”218 UN Secretary General Kofi Annan facilitated further meetings on the implementation of the judgment, leading to the establishment of a Cameroon-Nigeria Mixed Commission to negotiate further. In 2006, a bilateral agreement was reached at Greentree, New York, between the two countries, by which Cameroon guaranteed fundamental rights and freedoms to Nigerian nationals living in the peninsula; and in particular promised not to force Nigerian nationals living in the Bakassi 214 “IOM Helps Namibia to Introduce Border Resident Cards”, no date, http://www.iom.int/developmentfund/news/news17.htm, last accessed 07 July 2014. 215 Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), ICJ Judgement of 10 October 2002. 216 International Law Commission, Draft Articles on Nationality of Natural Persons in relation to the Succession of States, with commentaries, 1999 (Annex to UNGA Res. 55/153, 12 Dec. 2000), article 5. 217 Statement of Mrs. Nella Andem-Ewa, Attorney-General of Cross River State, to the ICJ, 28 February 2002, transcript available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/94/5005, accessed 29 August 2014. 218 “Nigeria rejects ICJ ruling on Bakassi”, PANA, 23 October 2002. 67